This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Peter J. Camiel to postpone his scheduled appearance before a Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On the basis of the pleadings and memoranda of the parties, the affidavit of Richard Galli, Esquire, and the testimony of Mr. Camiel, we make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. A Grand Jury empaneled in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 6, 1975, is currently conducting an investigation into possible violations of federal criminal statutes in connection with the award of municipal contracts in the City of Philadelphia, including, specifically, violations of Sections 371, 1951, and 1952 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

2. On or about February 12, 1975, Special Agent Klaus Rohr, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, visited petitioner Peter J. Camiel at the headquarters of the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee. At that time, Mr. Camiel was notified that his testimony before the Grand Jury would be required.

3. On or about February 24-25, 1975, Mr. Camiel was furnished with 77 written questions outlining the specific areas of inquiry in connection with the Grand Jury investigation as they related to the matters which would be the subject of the questions to be put to Mr. Camiel.

5. On April 17, 1975, Mr. Galli telephoned the office of Mr. Gerber, who was not available; Mr. Galli then informed an employee of Mr. Gerber's office that Mr. Camiel's testimony would be required on April 24, 1975, at 1:30 P.M. Mr. Gerber was then in the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and was informed by his office that an imminent Grand Jury appearance had been scheduled. However, he did not learn the precise time and date from his office personnel during that telephone call, notwithstanding the fact that the time of 1:30 P.M. on April 24, 1975, as the time of appearance, had been communicated to his office personnel.

6. On April 21, 1975, Mr. Galli spoke to Mr. Gerber with respect to the scheduled Grand Jury appearance.

7. Prior to April 21, 1975, Mr. Galli had not authorized the issuance of a subpoena to Mr. Camiel because of his understanding that Mr. Camiel would appear voluntarily and that the issuance of a subpoena was unnecessary.

8. On April 21, 1975, Mr. Galli authorized the issuance of a subpoena directing Mr. Camiel to appear before the Grand Jury on April 24, 1975, at 1:30 P.M.

9. On April 23, 1975, Mr. Gerber filed a motion in the instant matter to postpone Mr. Camiel's appearance before the Grand Jury until June 1, 1975, on the ground that Mr. Camiel could not adequately prepare for such an appearance prior to the primary election scheduled to be held on May 20, 1975.

10. On April 24, 1975, at 10:00 A.M., we held a hearing in open court upon Mr. Gerber's motion. At that hearing, we considered the documents filed by the parties, including the affidavit of Mr. Galli, and took the testimony of Mr. Camiel.

11. Mr. Camiel is Chairman of the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee. His responsibilities require him to attend to the affairs of that office on a year-round basis, but there are peak periods which generally occur during the weeks immediately preceding primary and general elections. During the present 1975 primary election campaign, Mr. Camiel has been required to work long hours, including week-ends.

12. Mr. Camiel testified that beginning in May of 1974, prior to the election by the Democratic City Committee of officers for the ensuing year, which election took place at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel, he and his associates and family members were subjected to threats from unknown persons. Mr. Camiel further testified that these threats subsided after the City Committee election, and began again in January of 1975, in the weeks immediately preceding the primary election scheduled for May 20, 1975. Mr. Camiel further testified that his daughter has been threatened, and that his wife and daughter have been under the protection of the Pennsylvania State Police for a period of about one month. In support of his ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.